Reliable sources: Judith Miller Tom Friedman Tim Russert
What a fucking joke. This is the stupidest conversation ever. I'd like to see the resumes of the wikipedia leadership. I wonder if it has been co-opted by corporatists. Wouldn't suprise me in the least. Ron Watson On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On May 1, 2007, at 8:28 PM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote: > >--when you say "the need to cite content"....must the sources be > > "traditional media"? or can they come from blogs? > > I agree that's it's very silly to say that the definition of a > video blog > should to come from traditional media. The idea is this: Wikipedia > has to > set a standard so how low should they set it? > > Wikipedia says that articles should be based on reliable, published > sources > because this involves a reliable publication process. i.e. if we > lowered > the bar to blogs, anyone could write anything and cite themselves > because > there's no reliable publication process. So are blogs excluded? No. > Blogs > can still be used but the main point should be backed up by a reliable > source. That means if I want to write about how the definition is > under > debate, I'll have to find a reliable source to show that this > debate is > notable, and then i can use a blog (or other less reliable source) > as a > another source to give more examples. > > > --also, from your user history it looks like the Vlog entry is the > > only one you are working with? Maybe you could explain a bit > > of your background so we know where you're coming from. You > > are obviously very interested in defining the subject of > videoblogging. > > I contribute to a few articles. The Video blog article being the > main one. > And recently, due to this discussion, there's been a lot of > progress on it > and i've been working with other editors to source the timeline and > hopefully this momentum will keep going. I used to have a vlog with my > roommate but then I bought a condo and we both got our own places. I > naturally got pretty busy after moving and never got back into it. > > >I guess the confusion comes from defining a topic that is still very > >new. You are bumping up against the passion/frustration in this group > >since many people here have helped shape what videoblogging is. You > >can understand it's a little ironic that we need to quote a > >traditional newspaper that may have to one of us....in order to > add to > >the Vlog entry. > > >So i agree that everything must be verifiable...but lets define how > >what these sources must be for a new field. Very often I find the > best > >wikipedia articles of new topics simply record the controversy and > >different ways of thinking. Can we at least document our differing > >points of view? > > Well, personally I'm starting to lean towards Richard BFs > definition because > videoblogs seem to be a genre now more than a website structure. > > But that's just my opinion. I agree that the definition is changing > and > doesn't even necessarily apply to the one in the article but my > opinion > doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. > > Ok, so reliable sources seem to say that vlogs are blogs with > video. Let's > take the dispute over the definition. Though the dispute may seem > notable > to you, me and other videobloggers in the group, Wikipedia has a > policy on > what is considered notable. Until a reliable source talks about the > dispute, > we have to assume that the general public doesn't know about it or > care > about it and that the dispute is, consequently, unencyclopedic. > Until a > reliable sources uses a different definition, the old definition is > all we > can use in the encyclopedia article. > > I think that's the issue here. People usually think that because > Wikipedia > is online, you can make an article about anything. What people may not > realize is that wikipedia really strives to have encyclopedic > content and > hundreds of articles and contributions are deleted everyday. Many > more than > are actually kept. I had my first article deleted. I didn't agree > with it > at first but I came to realize that Cooking Kitty Corner wasn't > exactly a > notable video blog. :P I also started getting into Wikipedia a lot > more and > it's definitely a hobby of mine now. > > So should reliable sources be defined differently? Maybe. There's > discussions all the time on Wikipedia policies. but as it is, we > have to go > with the current consensus on what is a reliable source. > > On 5/1/07, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like > those > > of > > > Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions. This is > what I > > > assume happened when I was called pathetic, a loser, a troll, > etc by > > group > > > members earlier. > > > Unfortunately, for Mmeiser and some others in this group, personal > > attacks > > > don't carry much weight in civilized discussions regarding > encyclopedic > > > content. > > > Since the yahoo group discussion began, we've had three people > > contribute > > > encyclopedic content to the article: Ruperthowe, Bullemhead and > myself. > > For > > > the amount of discussion we've had in this group, I'd like to > see more > > > happening to the article. Let's keep improving it. > > > I'm want to get some third party comments in a week or so after > we've > > done > > > some work on it. > > > > hey Patrick-- > > > > thanks for replying. > > here's some questions I have to better understand this ongoing > process. > > --when you say "the need to cite content"....must the sources be > > "traditional media"? or can they come from blogs? > > --also, from your user history > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ > Pdelongchamp), it > > looks like the Vlog entry is the only one you are working with? > Maybe > > you could explain a bit of your background so we know where you're > > coming from. You are obviously very interested in defining the > subject > > of videoblogging. > > > > I guess the confusion comes from defining a topic that is still very > > new. You are bumping up against the passion/frustration in this > group > > since many people here have helped shape what videoblogging is. You > > can understand it's a little ironic that we need to quote a > > traditional newspaper that may have to one of us....in order to > add to > > the Vlog entry. > > > > So i agree that everything must be verifiable...but lets define how > > what these sources must be for a new field. Very often I find the > best > > wikipedia articles of new topics simply record the controversy and > > different ways of thinking. Can we at least document our differing > > points of view? > > > > jay > > > > -- > > Here I am.... > > http://jaydedman.com > > > > Check out the latest project: > > http://pixelodeonfest.com/ > > Webvideo festival this June!!!! > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
